Human Behavior in The Brain on Trial by Eagleman - Essay Example

The common factor in the cases discussed is the presence (though unknown at the time of the crimes) of an underlying biological cause, either brain tumors or a pharmaceutical drug’s side effects.

            Eagleman uses these cases as a springboard to propose a new paradigm for the legal system. He asserts that as we become increasingly aware of the diseases, disorders, and even genetic qualities responsible for inspiring violent and deviant behaviors, our current conception of free will and the equality of people will be outmoded. In fact, Eagleman describes how our ideas are already outmoded by describing the statistical data that proves the presence of a genetic component behind the criminal activities of death-row inmates; since 98.1% of death-row inmates share this characteristic, there must be some physiological disorder that is to blame. Eagleman also goes so far as to say that any assumption of free will is questionable, since our genetic and neurological inheritance is in place from conception, and that inheritance will determine our likelihood of being aggressive, deviant, violent, and criminal. He says, “Because we did not choose the factors that affected the formation and structure of our brain, the concepts of free will and personal responsibility begin to sprout question marks” (Eagleman). Since the man that went on a shooting spree had a brain tumor, he, Eagleman argues, didn’t have freedom of choice. His ailment compelled him to commit the crime as it would compel anyone suffering from the same type of tumor.

            Eagleman seems to set forth the argument that, since we now have the ability to study very minute changes in the brain and consider every genetic variable possible in the study of a person’s chemistry, we can draw relationships between neurological, biological, and genetic attributes and the behaviors of the people bearing those attributes. Then the actions can be seen as caused by a gene’s or a tumor’s impact instead of being considered as the consequences of a person’s free will. In such a way, all actions of a person would become clinical and pathological, and proof of their inability to do anything but whatever they have done. Eagleman phrases this idea as follows, “Acts cannot be understood separately from the biology of the actors”. 

            Notably, Eagleman attempts to draw parallels between medicine’s previous and current perspective on mental illnesses and to consider how doctors would prescribe treatments that were basically torturous or based on deprivation. Whereas mental illnesses were once viewed as evidence of the patient’s shortcomings, weakness, or flawed character, they are now understood to be expressions of brain disorders (Eagleman). Eagleman seems to hint that the same trajectory will eventually be seen in the crime history books: although criminals had been seen as using their free will to choose to do wrong, those criminals will someday be seen as having a brain or genetic condition that caused them to act criminally. He opens up the possibilities for this by referring to criminal acts as “bad behavior” and states that we may find a biological explanation for bad behavior in the way that we found biological explanations for psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mania (Eagleman).

            While Eagleman’s article appears at first to be discussing neuroscience, it invokes legal principles and eventually goes on to focus on the prison system. Indeed, Eagleman described early on that 98.1% of prisoners on death row bear a genetic indicator, and certain genes make a person more likely to commit robbery or aggravated assault. He uses the information about the brain to argue against the uniformity of punishment afforded by the prison system and to advocate for mentally ill people. Eagleman asserts that anyone with a brain that doesn’t function “normally” should not be in prison but in a mental health facility and asserts that criminal behavior should be viewed in the same way as depression, schizophrenia, or any medical condition affecting the brain.      Finally, Eagleman takes his article in yet another direction by bringing neuroplasticity and brain exercises into the conversation, describing a workout he developed.

            Eagleman seems to want more fairness in the legal system and in the sentencing of prisoners and wants structural information about the brain and genetic data to be used in a way that promotes legal equality. While we may think all people are equal before the law, “neural equality” does not exist in the author’s mind, and, therefore, we don’t all have the same ability to control which impulses we act on and what choices we make. Although this article is incredibly complex and pulls a wide variety of disparate topics beneath one heading, the main thrust of the piece is that our legal and prison systems are flawed, convicts are sentenced unfairly and without equality, and the justice system would benefit from the introduction of a scientifically based sentencing method. Eagleman recommends that, as a society, we shift toward viewing criminal activity and deviant behavior as an illness to be treated instead of a transgression to be punished and that we treat the symptoms in mental hospitals and drug treatment facilities instead of prisons